Crawford Report says tip money into popular sports
By Doug Conway, 18 Nov 2009 Doug Conway is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Australian sports, Olympic Games, Olympic sports
Crowds at the Olympics in Beijing - photo by Elizabeth Chapman
The greatest good for the greatest number. Some Olympic sports might not like it, but it’s difficult to argue with the central democratic theme of the Crawford report into sports funding.
In essence it argues for people power.
It suggests tipping the funding scales back in favour of sports that are actually popular, that people really play.
Is Australia best served by winning a swag of Olympic medals, some in esoteric pursuits the nation follows at best once every four years?
Or by fostering a nation of participants who play sport in youth and adulthood, spurning all temptations to become couch-potato Norms?
Having both would be wonderful, but it’s not always possible to have your cake and eat it, too.
When it comes down to cold, hard cash, would you rather Australia have another taekwondo bronze?
Or new sports equipment at your kid’s school, and maybe an extra coach to go with it?
The report does not suggest that sports funding be cut, or that elite success is unimportant.
But it does suggest public money can be better spent for the greater good.
As such, it strikes a chord in anyone who has questioned why so much money can be poured into preparing a synchronised swimmer, say, or a weightlifter, clay target shooter or Greco-Roman wrestler, for a short, elite career, rather than legions of amateur surfers, netballers, footballers, golfers and cricketers for their sporting lifetimes.
Two examples say it all.
Archery gets more government funding than cricket, which boasts more than 100 times the number of participants.
And water polo receives as much elite funding as golf, tennis and lawn bowls combined.
The equivalent argument in the arts might suggest that opera could die out without subsidies.
But this is the age of accountability.
Governments ask the same questions as sports: can we utilise our resources better, can we spend smarter?
Australia has a proud Olympic history.
It is one of only three nations to have competed at every Summer Games and the one which most famously punches above its weight.
But at what cost?
© AAP 2012What they said about the Crawford report on Australia’s sporting future:
“There are things in this report that might ruffle a few feathers.” – Federal Sports Minister Kate Ellis.“The bias towards funding Olympic sports leads to outcomes that make little strategic sense for Australia.” – Crawford report.
“Some priority should be given to those sports played throughout the country and even more so to those that engage their participants through their lifetimes.” – Crawford report.
“More government funds are provided for archery than cricket, which has more than 100 times the number of participants.” – Crawford report.
“Water polo receives as much high performance and Australian Institute of Sport funding as golf, tennis and lawn bowls combined.” – Crawford report.
“Obviously this is one of the last occasions I will be seeing you – the Olympics will not be important enough for editors to bother sending you along in future, if Mr Crawford is correct.” – Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates, opening a press conference after the release of report.
“It seems un-Australian to me to settle for something second best.” – Coates on the report’s suggestion that Olympic gold medals might not be the best measure of sporting success.
“This is an insult to some of our great Olympic champions. Is Mr Crawford suggesting the gold medals won in Beijing by Matthew Mitcham, Steve Hooker and Ken Wallace meant nothing to the Australian people?” – Coates again.
“We’re complacent about our success and all of a sudden we’re talking about making the same silly mistakes that we made once before.” – Dual 1500m freestyle gold medallist Kieren Perkins.
“Sports such as netball, cricket and all of the major football codes each play a vital role in introducing large numbers of young Australians to healthy habits of life-long physical activity.” – AFL chief Andrew Demetriou on the suggestion that mass participation sports deserve priority.
“Our submission appears to have been largely ignored, so too the needs of Australia’s current and future Paralympic athletes, coaches and officials.” – Australian Paralympic Committee chief executive Miles Murphy.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Other Sports articles
- Victoria Azarenka vs Maria Sharapova: Australian Open women’s final live scores, blog (89)
- The sporting fallacy of the Olympic ‘Games’ (46)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (46)
- Djokovic vs Nadal was great, but do we need six-hour finals? (36)
- Sonny Bill looking sharp for his first real test (29)
- Sonny Bill wins title in first round (25)
- Nadal vs Djokovic: The match for the ages (20)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (10)
- New champ Williams looking to next fight (5)
- Aust and GB aim to convert 4ths to bronze
- Young pitcher signs big deal with Red Sox (7)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (13)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (20)
- London’s Olympic Games have a long way to come (10)
- World Cup Darts heartbreak in Hamburg (3)
- Mayweather and Pacquiao have shamed boxing (13)
- Will Tom Brady’s legacy be affected by one drop? (20)
- Sonny Bill needs to start boxing full time (46)
- Lachlan Murdoch squashing FTA sport for Fox’s benefit (4)
- Sonny Bill Williams vs Clarence Tillman III: Live updates, blog [video] (182)
- Explore:
- Australian sports, Olympic Games, Olympic sports
Kurt said | November 18th 2009 @ 2:24am | Report comment
Looks like the report got it absolutely spot on. There is no evidence whatsoever that government spending on elite sport does anything to address issues of inactivity and obesity in the broader populace, whereas investment in local sporting facilities is clearly linked to positive health outcomes. Not that I believe incidentally that AFL, league, soccer etc. should get more public money for their top competitions – they are big enough to look after themselves. Rather that this money should be invested in gyms, playing fields, equipment etc. that facilitate mass participation in sport at ALL ages and in all socio-economic groups, regardless of how many Olympic medals are on offer. If that means we slip down the medal table at the same time as slipping down the global obesity table (currently third behind the US and UK I believe) then I think that’s a price worth paying.
Interestingly the critique is already appearing in the Sydney press that this is all some sort of AFL plot to deny funding to international sports, ignoring the fact that Crawford himself played a key role in successfully restructuring soccer in Australia and the report argues for increased funding for ALL football codes, cricket etc.
dasilva said | November 18th 2009 @ 3:49am | Report comment
I agree to a degree that increasing activity and battling obesity should be the primary aim of the government
Nevertheless we should still fund olympics sports that are culturally significant or sports that have high international status. Such as swimming and athletics.
Putting in money in trying to produce our own Usain Bolt or another Cathy Freeman should be an investment that government should continue to make.
However stuff like archery, water polo is hardly something worth spending money to. Really we should cut funding in a lot of those esoteric sports that majority of the population do not care about.
BigAl said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Why would an investment ‘. . .to produce our own Usain Bolt or another Cathy Freeman ‘ be of benefit to anyone
but the new Usain Bolt or the new Cathy Freeman ?
Tifosi said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:31am | Report comment
Australia already outperfoms at the olympics with our population. If we went from 5th to 10th who really cares?
NUFCMVFC said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:40am | Report comment
“When it comes down to cold, hard cash, would you rather Australia have another taekwondo bronze?
Or new sports equipment at your kid’s school, and maybe an extra coach to go with it?”
OK I have a little bit of an issue with this part of the article, Taekwondo, and Martial Arts in general if you include others such as Karate and now UFC mixed style, is quite a significant participation activity. In Victoria there are currently 13,000 particpants in Taekwondo alone, 8000 male and 5000 female. In my club there are people from most age and weight demographics are represented and it is good exercise and bone/muscle strengthening.
Even if significant numbers of participants/practitioners don’t enter competition on the sporting side in terms of sparring competitions, it shouldn’t exactly be getting lumped with things like Water Polo or Archery given the fact that a lot of classes are run in community centres and school halls etc, and for a lot of kids are an after school exercise activity
From this perspective, having an Olympian in the sport would actually encourage more grassroots participation and healthy exercise etc, and from this perspective Taekwondo could always do with a bit ore funding for club equipment etc
NUFCMVFC said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:50am | Report comment
All in all, it is a bit of an age old question, does success at Olympics inspire people to participate more in a particular sport, or is it partly a lifestyle
Personally I would say both, generally it was easy to get involved in teams sports as a kid/teenager, in my case I would play Basketball on a Saturday and a Football code on a Sunday, and train during week. But what I did notice is that although there is midweek Basketball and sports, it doesen’t quite have the same social emphasis as when a teenager above U/18′s and I can see why people tend to fall out of it (participation sport). People get busy perhaps, but generally I think it is good to promote “life long” sports participation
Olympic funding is good for prestige, perhaps we should be more discerning though, ie maintain high levels for some like swimming but a bit less for some more obscure sports.
Another issue is that they can argue AOC funding is going where it’s needed, is sports like Cricket and Football codes have such high participation rates, they can raise funds via registration fees etc, not inconsiderable sums either, so some would argue to then top that up with Federal Govt funding when there are some other more obscure niche sports in dire need of funding. It is better perhaps to have a large collection of niche sports getting “disproportionate” funding and survive as a going concern, rather than have these sports “die out” effectively and have the participants lost to exercise or even move overseas because they aren’t interested in/passionate about or suited to sports of mass interest
Going back to Taekwondo, there are two sides, the participation side, but the Sports side of Taekwondo is very much a bit of a niche and it does require funding
Lastly, there are issues about funding for mass participation sports, how much is responsibility of Federal Govt and how much is State Govt and local council who are actually in charge of many of the facilities? There is a fairargument that Federal Govt, while encouraging and nurturing grassroots, do have to look at the “bigger picture” while the crux of grassroots participation issue is a concern for the States and Councils
Firestarter Bob said | November 18th 2009 @ 5:48am | Report comment
If the ACB can give Ricking Ponting a million dollar bonus and is sitting on a Twenty20 gold mine, then on what basis should it receive any government funding?
If the AFL can afford to pay K Hunt $500K (or whatever it was to boost the GC club’s deal) and continues to boast about the $200M it is spending on western Sydney in the name of expansion and better tv deals, then on what basis should it receive any government funding?
The government should not give the NRL any money as it is owned by a more than wealthy private company.
There is a case for the ARL to get funding as its work is not looking after the professional NRL level of the game. So the race towards forming an independent commission for rugby league might no longer be as compelling.
As for rugby 7s in all of this shake up who knows. Along with soccer It might be the only two Olympic sports to gain from all of this.
Redb said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
heard of grass roots development?
Fund rugby league but not Australian football. What binocular rubbish.
Redb
Michael C said | November 18th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
A contradiction stands out -
you reckon the govt should not fund the NRL – and it’s half owned by NewsLtd – I tend to agree.
however, you put a case for the ARL to be funded on the basis that it isn’t so concerned with the professional NRL level (although it does look after the SoO and Internationals doesn’t it?).
You DO realise don’t you that the AFL looks after both the AFL elite league – - as well as all the grassroots development and auskick and indigenous programs etc etc.
I thought this was part of the overall problem – the disconnect from the elite funding vs community benefit grassroots broadbase funding.
Firestarter Bob said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Of course I understand that. On reflection I would probably add the ARL to that group.
The point is that if a sport keeps telling everyone how financially well off it is, and if it is forking out mega deal salaries to its top players and officials, buying players from other codes and sports, then it is reasonable to ask why is that sport putting its hand out for money to help fund grassroots development.
These professional football codes and cricket generate enough money to fund their own grassroots development. They just choose to spend it on professional players instead of grassroots. For example, the ARU has laid waste to club rugby since the mid 1990s, preferring to pay overs to professional players and NRL converts. The ARU boasted of a “war chest” after the 2003 RWC. Why should the taxpayer fund the ARU’s need to now develop juniors?
Using some twisted logic in this Crawford report that sees professional football codes and cricket being paid more from the taxpayers every time that the sport increases their registered participants is wrong. These are businesses, not sporting bodies. They use schools and junior development as a means to spread propoganda and act as recruitment drives for future fans and players.
Other sports don’t generate any money and they are the ones the government should support.
Michael C said | November 18th 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
“These are businesses, not sporting bodies.”
????
all sports and even charities are run these days with a board and an executive and a CEO…….
it’s just some sporting bodies have much more successful top end entertainment products.
how is the AFL not a sporting body??
Firestarter Bob said | November 18th 2009 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
“how is the AFL not a sporting body??”
As evidenced by its actions.
It is plowing funds into a risk venture on speculation in western Sydney in the hope of bringing a greater financial return in years to come. It may succeed, it may fail. Investing money in the hope of making more money is a business investment venture.
If it was a sporting body it would not be risking those funds. It would put those funds into junior football and not risk that money at all.
albatross said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
Coates’s response was sooooo predictable. His participation in his chosen sports, rowing and Olympic Junket, have been heavily subsidized out of the public purse since he first coxed his first four at Homebush Boys High School in the 60s.
Redb said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
We need to maintain a diversity of sports. Olympics sports offer diversity from the football codes and cricket.
However, one of the issues is the funding is generally only directed at the elite level when athletes are ready to hit the AIS. Funding of different sports needs to go down to the school level – grass roots. Get the kids that dont want to play football off their bloody nintendo and out enjoying sport, any sport.
Redb
Brett McKay said | November 18th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
I’m a little torn on this. It would be great to have additional funding to the major sports, but repeating the mistakes that led to the formation of the AIS is not such a great idea. Perhaps this is one are where we should be following the lead of the Motherland, where a vast majority of Great Britain’s Olympic sports funding comes via national lotteries?
Redb said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Maybe its just me but I’d rather see funding for the AIS than some of the wasted money that goes to housing asylum seekers on Christmas Island. If we have to pay for that, take some of the money and fund sport too.
Bay35Pablo said | November 18th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
“In essence it argues for people power.”
What tosh. It is, as said in the next paragraph, about popularity. If you think it is the same thing you are a ninny.
Government is about doing what needs to be done, sometimes ignoring what is popular. If the government did what was supposedly popular, they’d be machine gunning asylum seekers at sea to keep the rednecks in this country satisfied.
The report seems to confuse 2 aims, (i) encouraging grass roots sport and participation, and (ii) ensuring Australia is competitive at the top level. The 2 are very different things. To suggest cutting funding for archery because it isn’t popular shows a complete ignorance of what is being dealt with.
This is what you get with the bean counters take over, and treat sport like a business. These are the same type of nongs that got rid of the tram network in Sydney and LA because the buses were going to be a better system.
And any government that gives rugby league $11m for a hall of fame are idiots. If they want a hall of fame, when they have TV revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars, they can pay for it them bloody selves. How many playing fields could have been built with that? Spend the money smarter and we won’t have this issue.
idiots.
Raider said | November 18th 2009 @ 11:29am | Report comment
There is no rugby league hall of fame. The $11 miilion got canned by Rudd and Kate “are there 2 rugby codes?” Ellis along with the Queensland rugby academy.